Posted on 07/30/2011 1:44:23 PM PDT by Liberty1970
ok, so it is 14700, that is still a very nice number
why not 14689? why so rounded?
Can you give me the pub ref on that quote?, I have a friend on the phone that has them all and is going to verify the number for me.
Post #287.
Obviously you have not read the thread.
Obviously you don’t know how to give a pub ref.
http://www.neilstoolbox.com/bibliography-creator/reference-book.htm
Follow the link so you can give proper citation.
I might have been able to find this if you had at least given the author.
I have yet to make anything up, on any thread I've ever posted to. Sometimes I'll be mistaken. It happens to the best of us.
Watt's insight is NOT a scientific theory. It is an engineering modification. Watt's was a great and innovative tinkerer. The the SCIENCE of the steam engine was developed by Lord Kelvin.
http://digital.nls.uk/scientists/biographies/lord-kelvin/discoveries.html
As to the "reproducibilty" point, you're right. I had the terms reversed. Doesn't change the point of my argument, which is that the first criterion is the ability of the original discoverer to get the same results from his experiment multiple times, and the second is the ability of other researchers to get similar results from identical experiments.
But failure to attain the second item is NOT automatic evidence that the results of the original discovery "are a scam", or even wrong. Quite often, the "reproducing" group simply don't actually have a TRULY identical experiment.
And "sometimes" the work of the second group is itself a scam. Read up on the early MIT experiments in Cold Fusion, and how the lead researcher DELIBERATELY falsified his results.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
My point is, if you can’t even get someone else to reproduce your experiment then you can’t mass produce the thing because you can’t describe how to reproduce it.
Manufacturing involves reproducing things on a mass scale.
So the fact that it can’t be reproduced doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t happening, just that you don’t understand it well enough to be able leverage it for any application and you absolutely can’t mass produce a product using it.
And your point is simply wrong. See my discussion of crafts guilds. They reproduced a great may and greatly complex items with no written instructions or theory of any sort.
What you are doing is confusing scientific reproducibility with engineering repeatibility (to use the specific terms correctly). What Rossi has apparently gotten is engineering repeatibility (that is, he can reproduce multiple items that work the same way), even if other groups without his "recipe" cannot. This is perfectly sufficient to have units to sell. And is legitimately done in all industries under the guise of "trade secrets".
It is one thing to not be able to reproduce the performance of a device without the trade secret, it is another to not be able to reproduce it at all.
It was interesting to hear someone talk about the problems with what is proposed. Like the lack of any theoretical way for these materials to undergo a transmutation and that the copper that was in the sample was naturally occurring and the lack of radiation. That all from someone isn’t declaring it a scam..that Rossi has used to boost his prestige.
http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/rossi-energy-catalyst-a-big-hoax-or-new-physics/
But that isn't the case. There are recent multiple reports of successful experiments by other researchers, both in the area of Ni-H (a la Rossi) and Pd-D2 (al la Pons/Fleischmann). I've read about at least four different ones in the last couple of weeks, none associated with Rossi, and at least one in competition with him (Piantelli).
"It was interesting to hear someone talk about the problems with what is proposed. Like the lack of any theoretical way for these materials to undergo a transmutation and that the copper that was in the sample was naturally occurring and the lack of radiation. That all from someone isn’t declaring it a scam..that Rossi has used to boost his prestige.
"If" the physics in the solid state behaves as does the physics in a superheated plasma. Which is, IMO, not very likely.
And I think his last paragraph is very telling:
"I myself have nothing against to reveal a scam, or join in and verify something that no one could imagine. Both extremes belong to that which makes life as a researcher incredibly interesting."
Which is basically saying "go where the evidence leads you". And which is precisely my own perspective. My deepest belief is that Mother Nature still has a LOT of surprises up her sleeve that we currently have no clue about.
I will give you Piantelli, but they think he is involved with the fraud too.
This Swed doesn’t give a damn if there is fraud. He just is enjoying the show.
You need to reread his statement, he doesn’t care.
Which shows exactly how deep the irrationality is.
"This Swed doesn’t give a damn if there is fraud. He just is enjoying the show.
So am I. Every now and then, my disgust gets the better of me, but for the most part, the antics of the antis are entertaining.
"You need to reread his statement, he doesn’t care.."
I think you misread him. He (like me) wants humanity to have a "high-energy" future (Star Trek, Babylon 5, take your pick). But he (again like me) knows that the truth will eventually be revealed.
Your projecting....I looked at what he is writing, he appears to be an eccentric scientist that doesn’t give a rip about anything outside his world.
He would be just as excited if this were a fraud because he is close enough to observe the action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.